Forums

Everything posted by 77.CountZero

Big yes to AI B-17s, or B-24s, i would even ditch that every AI gunner position has to have their own AI brain like we have now, just use one AI brain for all AI gunner positions on big airplanes to save resources like previous games do. Even use simple CEM for AI engines so we can have more then just few of bombers in same place in formation, benefits are worth it.
I would just try to make them as reasorce frendly as posible, as from what i understand thats the main reason of not making them, they would be to heavy for game if done like other bombers we have now, there has to be some solution to have them in game in bigger numbers atleast as AI.

Stalingrad Map: ~230x360km ~82800 sq.km
Moscow Map: ~280x250km ~70000 sq.km (280x280km, if you count area where you cant fly, over Moscow)
Kuban Map: ~290x416km ~120640 sq.km
So BoBp map is bigest one, and most demanding when you look how many citys are in that area, and most of it is land, big task

No
with unGTP program in mods section
So if you realy belive devs are trying to srew us up by changing stuff under the table just for shits and giggles and not saying they change it, im expecting youll imidiatly go and download that program! hurry! and extract every .gtp file from game, and copy extracted data on some secure hard drive and store it in some safe, and call it 3.002 extracted data... aaaaaaaannnnndddddd then wait and wait and wait for them to relise 3.027 patch, and try to screw you up by changing 20mm guns bullet so its porked, you can open your 3.002 data you stored, and extract 3.027 datas .gtp, and compare it. Then you can show us what exactly was changed to that bullet insted expecting people to belive your fealings when they are saying nothing is changed.
I also get fealing P-40 guns are to good now, but i see nothing is changed regarding its guns or ammo

LOL and still i dont see any changes in files regarding german bullets when i extract data from game and compare it to previous, it seams your just as prone to placebo as anyone els no mather of your high skills in axis airplanes

Chat area and waiting players area in coop lobby:
Something like on this picture could be added to Coop lobby we now have in game (im lazy so i just used hyperlobby parts to show how it could look).
1. It would alow players to see who is waiting in lobby for some coop fun ( part on right side of picture). Player can see if there is some players he likes to play with or hosts in lobby at same time he is there, and stay or leve and go in dogfight mode, now you dont know if anyone is even waiting to play some coops when you select coop section of multiplayer.
2. Chat window on bottom of picture would give oportunity for players to easy interact (not many people falow forums). People wonting to host can type what mission they plan to host with what airplanes, or ask people waiting if they have any requests, and people waiting could see if some one plans to host and when is planed start and so on...
Now thouse things are missing, and just by adding them we could get what HL in 1946 did good in alowing quick interaction betwen coop hosts and players.

Balanced preset and no mather if low medium or high clouds on that preset far contacts (4-5km+) you dont see if you dont zoom in because of cloud problem, recent video showing this thing, and if you look at what mod that fixes this to some extent does its more problem in presets then in clouds option.

I dont like this cloud problem, devs say they cant fix it so dont post about it, so how do you know thouse 99.99% are all people who dont mined it or who dont like it but dont post about it as devs said they cant fix it.
Atleast to eliminate this in SP for people who dont like to expiriance this in SP there should be option in realisam to turn off clouds in missions, i dont wont to play it like Sturm when airplanes disapear infront of clouds because of this problem, so atleast for SP there can be solution, just easy switch clouds on or off.

That problem on 190s in box is fixed since 2014 (you should check pictures of original BoX Fw190 cocpit in spoiler and see how bad it loked, video also explaining fix), Devs raised fw190s gunsight and make low and side bars less tick.
So what you wont to be fixed on 190 in BoX, is already fixed like it should be fixed.
But problem is they decided to only fix this for 190s, but not to fix it for other airplanes that would have same problem you show in that video when tick armored glass is used at big angles.
So now you have in BoX that ONLY one airplane gets special treatment, while others like new La5FN for example, deosent get this fix even though he have same problem and because of it its gunsight is opstructed.
Its bad when you decide to fix things that effect all airplanes to some extent on only one airplane, just because that airplane have more fans, thats not how things should work, and shows bias. If you already do it correctly for one airplane it should be done corectly for all to keep same level of quality. Tick armor glass on Spitfires and 109Gs would also make side and bottom bars look not tick as they look whitout refraction acounted, so they should also have corect real view.
I hope CloD will not make same mistake BoX is making, and make cockpit adjustments neccesary for more real views on all airplanes that expiriance this, and not just for one fan selected airplane like its in BoX now.

Not many of late ones, but i think they would have to just go for something new and differant as if you go by numbers you would have 109g4-g6s and 190a4-5s insted of mc205s and g55s, and i dont belive you would be coming back to do other italy so just go for all italian fighters as you already have late and early german airplanes covered.

I would go also for Italy next, posted here my proposal month ago:
"I would go for Battle of Anzio , small map like this for example:
around 340-420km 1:1 scale
https://ibb.co/k6nFyS
Half is sea and tarain is interesting to fly over with all hills and mountains, and you could do few 43-44 operations on it.
And this planset:
RE.2002 Serie II ( bombs and torpedo)
M.C.205V Serie III (bombs, droptanks)
SM.79bis (bombs and torpedo)
Do-217K ( bombs, Fritz-X guided bombs, Hs 293 guided rockets)
G.55 Serie I (Colectable, torpedo, bombs)
Seafire LF Mk.III (droptank, bombs)
Hurricane Mk.IV ( rockets, bombs, 40mm gunpods)
B-26C-25 (bombs )
P-51C-10 (droptank, bombs ) or Spitfire Mk.VIII (droptank, bombs)
Mosquito B Mk.IV (colectable, bombs)"
And still think that would give interesting options with airplanes we would already have, and would be oportunity to avoid repet of 109&190 for axis all the time, and give some requested airplanes to game, with some new and interesting weapon options.
Call it Battle of Rome, if that would make more buzz, but on that map area you could do some interesting operations.
Not mutch repeting types, you can even go for A-36 insted P-51C, and you get some carriers ops with landings on Salerno or Anzio.
And if it comes after some PTO you would already have F4Fs to use on it also.

And what would that prove, only that im better or worst 1v1 player then you, its clear from data that yak can outturn fw190 in 1 on 1
if you didnt get that trigered imidiatly you could see that i say its best at thouse things out of all axis airplanes
funny how its tabo to point out some more then useal abilitys of axis airplanes but its all ok to do so for russian ones

You posted in open forum for all to see and respond to, cant blaim me for interacting with your post and defending devs choices (and i see im not only one doing so ). If you realy wont/need answer from devs on this its easy to ask by email, but thats "probably" not what you wont
And if you bather to check data other users presented to you, youll see that 9 fits from historical point of view perfectly.
And still my bias to one or other side didnt prevent me to see that Allied side is geting better 5 airplanes then Axis when you look at historical data of airplanes used in that operation.

Nah i just need to read few post abow my and see how things are going with this, planty of bias there
Also im not suprised with Spit or other but im suprised with 190 so why should i not coment on its majic abilitys

Its 5th fighter airplane that flew in that operation by numbers used that day on axis side, around 40 avialable 24 flew in mission, only 190A8(and F8), 109G14(and G14AS), 190D9 and 109K4 flew in bigger numbers that day, so he is normal choice as 5th fighter airplane for axis side for that operation. Other avialable fighters were used in smaller numbers at that day then 262, so it fits more then 38L or TempV for allieds

Probably because more squadrons were equiped with mk9s then mk14 (14-15 squadrons used mk9 while 4-5 used mk14) at the aifields attacked on the day of operation bodenplatte.
As if you look at axis lineup we get are geting choice is not top 5 best fighters used in that op, but top 5 fighters that was in biggest numbers used on that day, ( we dont get A9 insted A8, or G10 insted G14 even though they flew that day in action and are better airplanes then ones we get, as there was more G14s, and A8s used at that day).
Althought i dont know why same is not done in case of P-38L, it should be J model that was used in op not L that was in West at small number, and also it should be Typhoon 1B(17sq) insted Tempest V (5sq), that was in mutch bigger numbers used at that day on attacked airbases.
So it seams Allied side is already geting some help when you see airplane choices on both side

I dont know from where is info coming that they wont be doing AS version and from where is all the panic coming, yur post is not first i see people asking about this.
I see in In book Bodenplatte: The Luftwaffe's Last Hope, OOB for germans for December 31 1944 clearly states that some units had AS versions pic:
So why would they not make that modifications when it was used, and its easyer to do then cliped wing modification for this Spitfire IXe we can see in pictures of this DD. Maybe all thouse lack of engine mods for G6 has people in fear for G14

If you enable logs in game you can have missionreports with info about what exact damage each bulet does to tank when its hit, its in percentages this is how i was checking before if there is any differance betwen HE and AP when i atack tanks or is there any differance if i attack it aft, side or top, i was doing this in SP quick missions, and then logs would be genarated in my game data folder as missionReport text files (more then few per same sortie). Now its posible to just check in game data for tanks and know it from there when data is extracted.
Also now when we can extract data from game its easy to see what armor strenghts each tank has.
just small part as exp:
Kv-1
So top armor of 40mm, Its clear only good way is to attack it from top, same like it was in 1946, i remenber C6 trollbug breda armand and crew killing Kv-1s on stalingrad seow campaign like pros, dive60-80deg then climb and repet, good air cover and whole tank colum was history
T-34
PzIVF1
When you see armor strenghts its clear why some tanks you can easy get from side and some not, but airplanes are ment to kill them from top, and in 1946 if you land hit in engine he would be instant kiled, probably same works here.
But when you enable logs you can easy see what damage each bullet does when you hit tank

Hi Stick, yes thats better option with "//" infront lines of code you dont wont to have activated
Removal of all icons in both mods is controled by that ingamemessages.dds located in cache folder of mods, if you just rename it to -ingamemessages.dds you will see icons back.
If you deactivate some messages from "info.locale=eng.txt" file by deliting or placing "//" infront their icons will also be deactivated and you will see text and icons of only messages you have left active
Do you also wont to just remove text of some messages and have only their icons visable?

Its exactly the same as why 190 gunsight is fixed, only in La5FN case its wors then it was in 190 when it was lanched in game, and when they fix it.
Who would place gunsight in that way so its bottom part is opstructed by any part of airplane when you have room to not place it that way, in real airplane refraction is accounted for and whole gunsight is then not opstructed by nouse, and thats not what we get in game when they dont acount for refraction from that tick armor glass (like they did in 190 cockpit).
And you still have bad view over the nouse even when whole gunsight is clear like in real was, and not ostructed like now in game. Its just strange to fix this for one airplane but not for other airplanes in game with same problem.

Helo, you cant fix that it needs to be fixed by devs, its same problem they fixed for 190s years ago when gunsight was opstructed because refraction is not modeled, they just raised gunsight and same should be done to La5FN, no way in real life gunsight view was obstructed like we have it in game now.

From what you say you are hosting your mission in cooperative mode and it works.
To use fakefield (spawn points) you need to save mission as deathmatch and host it in dogfight mode.
cooperative mode alows you to have MP mission where players can only spawn in AI airplanes you alow to be taken, and only one life and airplane per mission.
dogfight mode (deathmatch) is where you should use spawn points (fakefields) in MP to alow players to spawn from places you put thouse spawn points over, and players can respawn again and again with other airplanes.

Hi i tested it with 80 max zoom out and it works, it limited me to 80FoV, but when i moved my head with Track ir it alowed me again to move abow that FoV i set, ill check other conf files and report if i see somthing there helps in limiting it when you use head tracker, it seams he is overwrighting that limit.